Refusing demands from Virginia’s Democratic lawmakers to add sexual orientation to the rules governing discrimination against state employees, Gov. Bob McDonnell says his recent non-binding directive is good enough to keep The Gays safe on the job.
Of course, that also means taking him at his word that the Constitution doesn’t protect homosexuals, and taking him at his word that gay employees cannot be protected, so there’s that.
RichardR
To answer the question posed in QT’s headline, uh, no, McDonnell’s promise isn’t good enough.
“Good enough” will be Virginia voters expelling conservative republicans from the legislature, the passage of gay employment protections, the reversal of the state’s consitutional amendment banning not just gay marriage but legal recognition of any gay relationship, and the equality of all citizens of this beautiful but morally flawed state.
Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
A politician’s word is only as good as their latest poll numbers.
This homophobe bigot governor is attempting to soften the ultra-wingnut impression he had created about himself in fear that Northrup Grumman will select Maryland, DC or Delaware, instead of Virginia, as their new world headquarters.
Steve
An opinion from the A.G. has the force of law. State agencies are required to follow it until/unless there are judicial decisions to the contrary. A policy memo from the Governor does not have the force of law. It is just a policy. In this case, it is exactly the same policy (nondiscrimination) that the A.G. says other executive-branch agents (universities) may not make.
What is needed is a change in the law.
Perhaps the university faculties could help the legislature to understand the need for that change.
Recall that the functions of a university that are unambiguously controlled by the faculty include admission to classes, grading, and awarding of degrees. Under the recent A.G. opinion, a faculty member could choose to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in one or several of those functions.
A faculty could decide not to admit heterosexual students to the school. A faculty member could decide not to admit heterosexual students to his/her courses. A faculty member could consider sexual orientation in assignment of grades. The entire faculty could decide not to award degrees to heterosexual students.
None of that would be fair, of course. Preventing such unfair practices is the purpose of anti-discrimination policies. But, as long as no such anti-discrimination policy is allowed, discrimination is allowed, and those policies would be perfectly legitimate. The resulting public outrage could help some of the bigots in the legislature to understand that anti-discrimination policies are actually necessary.